A Misguided Koran Distribution Project

I am always wary when religion and politics are mixed. I am especially wary when the politics of religion is disguised as charity. As a Muslim in America, and as a blogger, I have always attempted to raise the warning flag when I have seen a dangerous politicization of Islam, or when I have seen attacks upon Islam motivated by hate only. In the post-9/11 world I think it is important as a Muslim to explain the religion to non-Muslims in an attempt to foster understanding and hopefully some sanity.

Islam is one of the world’s major religions. It stands on its own. However, when the religion is politicized (as with all religions), bad things happen.

It is with the above in mind, I was quite perturbed when I came across a "Quran Distribution Project" at the blog Eteraz.org. The idea of this project is to donate 1000 copies of English translations of the Koran to "Western mosques and prisons". The project asks readers to donate money to raise $30,000 to help purchase the 1000 copies. Another post offers to give out a free copy of the Koran to Muslims who desire one, and directs non-Muslims to CAIR for their free complementary copy.

I will leave aside my concerns about a political blog raising money to distribute a religious text for a moment. I will focus on the project itself. The project aims to send copies of the an English translation of the Koran by a man named Mohammad Azad, who converted to Islam and became a citizen of Pakistan and Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations. The blog claims that his translation is more accurate than the "Saudi sponsored" translations. In fact, it claims that this translation is the most authoritative English translation of the Koran:

At the Eteraz.Org homepage you will see a large gray box asking for donations. We are trying to raise $30,000 to purchase 1000 copies of the Muhammad Asad Translation and Tafsir (Exegesis) of the Glorious Quran. This work is considered the most authoritative English translation/commentary and corrects a number of errors in the Saudi sponsored Qurans proliferating in the U.S.

…This particular translation and exegesis is one of the most authoritative in the English language. The edition we are purchasing is also very aesthetically pleasing. Pictures: 1, 2, 3. This project will be the Islamic blogosphere’s first major money raising project. I believe it will be a success and will demonstrate that the global Islamic netroots is alive and powerful; and a force for positive action.

…

At the current time, the only English translation which provides in depth commentary on every verse is "The Noble Quran", distributed by the Saudi Arabian King Fahd Center For Printing of the Holy Quran. That translation does not provide any actual exegesis; merely references to various ahadith that relate to some of the verses. In that sense, it is not comprehensive; nevermind the fact that many of the ahadith themselves are far too nuanced for average Muslims with no scholarly background to understand. Hadith is a complex science that most Muslims, including myself, are not equipped to understand. It is no wonder that people reading this Quran often quote verses out of context and often for extremist causes.

The Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation does provide a commentary; however, most authorities believe that the Muhammad Asad commentary is far superior.

…

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable. For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The blog also has a separate post describing why this translation is better than the "Saudi sponsored" translation.

Let me point out that Muslims believe that the Koran can only be understood when read in the original Arabic. All translations of the Koran into other languages, including English, are considered to be "interpretations" and not translations. Having said that, it is important to debunk a lot of misinformation contained in the posts on this topic at Eteraz.org. If the argument for distributing the Koran, and asking readers for money, is that other translations are inadequate and there is a compelling need to push a particular translation, the argument has to be based on fact and not assertion.

First, it is not the case that the Muhammad Asad "translation" is considered the most authoritative English translation of the Koran. It is a worthy translation, one amongst many. The two most widely read and available English translations of the Koran are the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version and the Marmaduke William Pickthall version (I happen to have both). The Yusuf Ali version is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative versions in existence today. In fact, the "Saudi sponsored" translation that Eteraz.org cites is in fact the Yusuf Ali translation and not some wahhabi text serving the will of the Saudi government. It is also worth noting that Yusuf Ali was an Indian and not a Saudi. If I were to venture a guess, I would bet the few dollars in my pocket that if you counted up all English translations of the Koran ever sold, the Yusuf Ali version would come out on top by a large margin.

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable.

He is once again referring to the Yusuf Ali version, and claiming that it is the "Saudi Translation". The Yusuf Ali version does indeed contain "parantheticals". So do many other versions, the Picktall and Shakir translations come immediately to mind. As an example of "parantheticals", please see the translation of Surah Fatiha (the first surah in the Koran) by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir side-by-side at the University of Southern California Compendium of Muslim Texts project. Clearly, it is not "unacceptable" to use "parantheticals". Given the complexity of translating the Koran from its original Arabic to English, "parantheticals and other devices" are an accepted tool of translation.

For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

This claim feeds the fear of the Saudi government as anti-Semites and anti-Christians. While it might be convenient to bring the politics of Saudi Arabia into this religious discussion, it must still be based in fact. Click here to read the English translation of Surah Fatiha at the Saudi King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an. As is claimed, "phrases ‘such as the Jews’ and ‘such as the Christians’" are not "inserted" into the Surah Fatiha in the Saudi translation. As a note, there are many worthy translations (as I will list below) that the reader can examine other than the one available at the King Fahd Complex.

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The above statement is patently false. As I noted above, most English speakers use either the Pickthall version or the Yusuf Ali version. All the popular and scholarly English translations are available free online or via bookstores (and for you online types, Amazon is a great resource).

Finally, on a more humorous note, part of the reason Eteraz.org cited for pushing this particular translation of the Koran is that it contains "depth" commentary that helps the common man "understand" Islam. Many other translations (notably the Yusuf Ali translation) contain commentary. Of course, commentary on religious texts is always risky business. To bolster the argument, Eteraz.org presents us with commentary in his preferred translation that tries to tackle a troublesome passage in the Koran. Specifically, verse 34 of the fourth Surah, "The Women". In this verse, some translated versions seem to suggest that wives should be beaten if they are unfaithful. Eteraz.org explains why the commentary in the Muhammad Asad translation is "valuable":

However, the reason the Asad Quran is more valuable than the Noble Quran is because it offers a comprehensive commentary at the bottom of the page which The Noble Quran does not, and in that commentary, beating is invalidated.

It is this commentary, running throughout the Asad Quran, which is the reason for our support of the Muhammad Asad Quran. It is probably a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less.

By reading the commentary in the Asad Quran, the reasonable Muslim will become convinced that beating is not a good idea. Meanwhile, The Saudi Noble Quran, which has no commentary, leaves the average reader with the impression that beating is OK.

I am not sure that I agree that is "a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less." I kind of like the idea of figuring out things. I think suggesting that Muslims should rely on commentary rather than figuring things out sounds more like indoctrination than knowledge (as they say, when in doubt, use the source Luke!). Nonetheless, let’s go to Asad’s explaining away this passage (as quoted in Eteraz.org):

On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic – "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars ( e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem.

I am not sure whether this commentary is valuable or simply humorous. I guess a good Muslim will take away from this commentary that we should take a toothbrush or a folded handkerchief to our wives, and beatings "should preferably be avoided". Oh good, beating is ok then – as long as I’ve tried the toothbrush technique first!

I am always wary of any form of "thumping", whether it be "Bible thumping" or "Koran thumping". The project proposed by Eteraz.org seems to me to be Koran thumping.

If the goal is to spread an understanding of Islam, I recommend pointing readers to the many authoritative translations of the Koran as well as many worthy books on Islam. There is absolutely no need to push one version over the other – and certainly not on the basis of false or misleading assertions. For those readers who are interested in the Koran, feel free to peruse the following free online versions or versions that you can purchase on Amazon.com.:

There are many other translations. Feel free to choose any one as a starting point. If you are doing scholarly research, you need to read multiple translations and preferably the original text of the Koran in Arabic.

Finally, there are a number of very good books on Islam. One of my favorites is No god but God, a recent book by Reza Aslan. No one book will give you an understanding of Islam or any religion – similarly, reading a translation of the Koran will not give you a full understanding of Islam. Like the study of any religion, the study of Islam is not a one-stop deal – the reader will benefit from multiple viewpoints and multiple sources. Anyone who pushes one at the expense of others is selling you something. Beware false prophets.

15 Responses to A Misguided Koran Distribution Project

Thank you for writing this post. I’ve wanted to read the Koran for awhile but I didn’t know which version to read. It’s like the Bible. King James? New Living Times? The NeoCon Translation? (Just kidding. I think.) :d

Robbie, the neocon version promises that you will be greeted in heaven with candy and flowers! :d

Rivkeleh, that’s a tough question to answer. I am not a native Arabic speaker, so I cant say. I have heard that the Pickthall version captures a lot of the stylistic elements of the language. Thee Yusuf Ali version is usually the version most scholars use. Most Muslims who have an English translation at home will probably have the Yusuf Ali version. I prefer the Pickthall version though.

I think for the layman any version will do quite well – the differences between them are not major. What I generally do when I am trying to get some background on a particular verse, I look up multiple versions using “the google” and then I also read commentary from other sources.

Well you may recall that that’s how I decided to learn Hebrew — I wasn’t quite convinced I trusted any translation!

The part of my previous post that got eaten was that while most Christians have a copy of the King James, and it may be the most BEAUTIFUL of the translations of the Christian Bible, it also is not the most accurate, and as I recall may have some intentional modifications to the text to support the political objectives of those who funded the translation — so which one is most commonly owned isn’t necessarily the best indicator of which is the closest to the original.

You should be aware, by the way, that if there’s a problem with the little code picture and you ask it to give you a new one, your software eats the post. It ate this one, too — I just happened to have it on my clipboard.

Mash, I will have to check which version I have. I do have the ‘saudi gov’t approved’ one. A Muslim friend of mine in Canada got me that Koran from the Saudi embassy in Ottawa as a goodbye (and good luck!! :d ) gift when I went to Saudi Arabia for a few years. I think ‘my’ Koran does have commentaries but it’s mostly an Arabic/English version since I couldn’t (and can’t) read Arabic. Like you said, the only ‘true’ version is considered the Arabic version and hence, anyone who converts, ‘has to’ learn to read Arabic..
I’ll check tomorrow..
interesting post Mash:)
Ingrid

Rivkeleh: If your interest is only to get a basic idea of the contents of the Qur\’an, I\’d primarily recommend Yusuf Ali; if you have an interest in the commentary, Yusuf Ali is also the better choice, IMO. I too am like Mash, though, in my preference for Pickthall. I find it to be a powerful translation that \

Rivkeleh: If your interest is only to get a basic idea of the contents of the Qur’an, I’d primarily recommend Yusuf Ali; if you have an interest in the commentary, Yusuf Ali is also the better choice, IMO. I too am like Mash, though, in my preference for Pickthall. I find it to be a powerful translation that “speaks” to me in a way that the Yusuf Ali translation rarely has. It is, though, much more difficult to read.

I think most people who know the translations would prefer the Muhammad Asad (not AZAD – free – meaning is different). His biography is very interesting.

The Pickthall and Yusuf Ali ones are fab too, but translated and infused with meanings of a different time. Yusuf Ali, Allah shower glory and reward upon him, ended up approximating a lot of stuff to Victorian values. his life biography is very tragic.

People i regard as learned, senior Muslim social scientist, tell me that Asad had read the most tafsir that they knew, he lived with the bedoiuns and seemed to have crossed all the t’s and dotted all the eyes.

Saudi reissues of famous translations are notoriously erm… edited. The reason is that they are so scared of doing anything interesting and in contravention to their idea of monotheism. There’s big debates and literature on this in religious circles.

I dont have a detailed knowledge of arabic grammar(yet) and have found the Asad translation very useful indeed. I think the distribution project is a big deal because it is sharing intelligable meanings of Quranic revelation with people who havent encountered it yet.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The version complained about at eteraz.org is not the Yusuf Ali translation, but the one by Hilali and Khan, which is the version that has been distributed by the Saudi government recently (they no longer distribute the Ali translation). The text itself is supposedly pretty accurate, but it contains many parentheticals and footnotes that are distracting to the reader and are often based on particular medieval interpretations.

There is also a newer translation by a woman from California, writing under a pen name, that is apparently more accurate and has widespread support from Muslim scholars, distributed by “Saheeh International.” It seems to be loosely based on the H & K translation but eschews the extraneous commentary. I read on another blog that a newer, easier to read revision is about to be released, but you can get the current version for free in PDF format on several websites.

Personally I find the Arberry translation good, in addition to the Saheeh International and Asad ones, but most Muslims shy away from it because it isn’t written by a Muslim. I’m also trying to get hold of the Abdel Haleem translation published in the UK a few years ago–does anyone have any comments on it?

By the way, there are several websites where you can compare different translations. The one I like is the Online Quran Project (quran-online.net). Note that the Saheeh translation is listed there under the name Umm Muhammad and they don’t have a few translations that haven’t been released for copyright reasons.

I think you overlook one very important facet of Asad’s translation which makes it superior to most others: Not only is it progressive on some issues, but it has copious footnotes explaining difficult or cryptic passages, which is absolutely essential for effectively advocating reform in the Muslim world today.

As for the question of what is the most literal translation, it may be controversial for sectarian reasons (though, ironically, there is little if anything about its substance bears a sectarian imprint) but Muhammad Ali’s translation is highly literal and useful for students of Arabic from a linguistic standpoint. Like the Asad translation, it has many footnotes–more, actually–and unlike most other translations it frequently discusses the reasoning and evidence involved when it departs from a literal translation.

It too is quite progressive on many issues. For example, it argues against the notion of eternal hell for non-Muslims, or offensive jihad.

Assessing the money flow is another important element within the company strategy format, so as to sustain a normal money flow to meet the important capital needs. Probability of monetary crisis and also the methods of crisis management should be mentioned in the structure. The business strategy must consist of the advertising plans and technique leading to the expansion from the organization.